Quote:
Originally posted by bebanovich
Quote:
|
You're not missing anything. The answer is that the spirit of the rule is ultimately immaterial in this case. It's a procedural type rule that has got nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage or anything like that. It's the same type of rule as , say, substitution- it simply tells you how and when. We don't get to pick out the rules that we like or dislike; we just call the ones that we have to call- like this one. If we did get to pick-and choose, I doubt that the rule allowing coaches to call time-outs would be around very long, for one example.
|
OK. That tears it. Thanks Jurassic Referee, that's an answer that's easier for me to live with. I still think that a better comparison might be using the 30 seconds as a timeout when a player is DQ'd. I know that steps have been taken to discourage this practice because it really was not the original intent of the rule (wasn't this a recent point of emphasis?).
Maybe if this system really catches on and isn't treated as a travesty, we might see similar tweaks down the road. I can only hope. 
|
Coach,
I haven't heard of any "steps" to discourage this out my way.
I don't mind this practice at all. If a coach wants to use the 30 seconds to replace a DQ'd player...no problem.
BTW, if an opposing coach is using this time...you probably already know you can use this time to have your players come to the bench area, staying on the court, for a little talk.
Sun Dec 05, 2004, 10:29pm
Threaded Mode
